Chullin Daf 67 (חולין דף ס״ז)
Daf: 67 | Amudim: 67a – 67b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (67a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The Eretz-Yisrael rule: place the detail between two adjacent generalizations and expound klal-prat-klal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם וְדוּנֵם בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, ״בַּמָּיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – פָּרַט, ״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
English Translation:
place the detail between the two generalizations and then expound them as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization. Therefore, the first instance of the phrase “in the waters” is a generalization. The phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” is a detail. And by the second instance of the phrase “in the waters,” it then generalized again.
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud opens by completing Ravina’s citation from the previous daf. Since the verse has two adjacent generalizations (both ‘in the waters’) flanking one detail (‘in the seas and rivers’), the rule taught in Eretz Yisrael is to mentally place the detail between them and read the structure as klal-prat-klal: ‘in the waters’ (klal), ‘seas and rivers’ (prat), ‘in the waters’ (klal again). This rearrangement makes the standard generalization-detail-generalization derivation available.
Key Terms:
- הַטֵּל פְּרָט בֵּינֵיהֶם = ‘place the detail between them’ — the rearrangement rule for adjacent generalizations
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל = generalization, detail, generalization
- בַּמָּיִם / בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים = ‘in the waters’ (the generalizations) / ‘in the seas and rivers’ (the detail)
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה
Klal-prat-klal includes only what resembles the detail — flowing water; channels forbidden, pits permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ מַיִם נוֹבְעִים, אַף כֹּל מַיִם נוֹבְעִים. מַאי רַבִּי? חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַיעֵט? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא.
English Translation:
Therefore, as in any instance of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the detail, seas and rivers, is referring explicitly to flowing water, so too, fish without fins and scales found in all flowing water are forbidden. What does this include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes pits, ditches, and caves, which are collections of still water, to permit all fish found in them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Applying klal-prat-klal, one includes only cases resembling the detail. Since seas and rivers are flowing water (mayim novim), the prohibition on sign-less fish extends to all flowing water — including trenches and channels (charitzin u-ne’itzin). What is excluded, and thus permitted, is still water: pits, ditches, and caves (borot, shichin, u-me’arot). The resemblance is defined by the water’s motion.
Key Terms:
- מַיִם נוֹבְעִים = flowing/spring water — the defining feature of the detail
- חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין = trenches and water-channels — flowing, hence included (forbidden)
- בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת = pits, ditches, and caves — still water, hence excluded (permitted)
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Why not define the detail as water ‘on the ground’? Then even pits would be forbidden, excluding only vessels
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – מַיִם גְּדֵלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, אַף כֹּל מַיִם גְּדֵלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. וּמַאי רַבִּי? אֲפִילּוּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַיעֵט? מַיעֵט כֵּלִים!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But why not say: Just as the detail refers explicitly to water that grows, i.e., is found, on the ground, so too, it includes all water that grows on the ground? And what would this include? It would include even pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit fish found in them that do not have fins and scales. And what would it exclude? It would exclude only those found in vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the choice of defining feature. Why read the detail’s resemblance as ‘flowing water’ rather than ‘water on the ground’? On the latter reading the prohibition would extend even to pits, ditches, and caves (all on the ground), and only water in detached vessels would be excluded and permitted. The exegesis depends on which shared trait of seas and rivers is taken as decisive.
Key Terms:
- מַיִם גְּדֵלִין עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע = water that is ‘on the ground’ — the alternative defining feature
- מַיעֵט כֵּלִים = it would exclude [only] vessels
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
If so, the extra ‘these you may eat’ is wasted — vessels are excluded anyway; so pits must be permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, ״תֹּאכְלוּ״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded, since they are not at all similar to seas and rivers. Rather, the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” serves to indicate that only trenches and water channels are considered similar to the detail, but all fish found in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rebuts the ‘water on the ground’ reading by no-redundancy. Vessels are utterly unlike seas and rivers and would be excluded even without a verse, so if the derivation only freed vessels, the clause ‘these you may eat of all that are in the waters’ would be wasted. The extra clause must therefore be teaching something more — that only flowing channels resemble the detail, while pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
Key Terms:
- תֹּאכְלוּ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ = ‘what use is [the clause] you may eat?’ — the redundancy objection
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה
The school of R’ Yishmael reads it as ribbui-mi’ut-ribbui: amplify, restrict, amplify — includes all but vessels
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״בַּמָּיִם״ ״בַּמַּיִם״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, אֵין זֶה כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֶלָּא רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט. ״בַּמָּיִם״ – רִיבָּה, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – מִיעֵט, ״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה. רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל. מַאי רַבִּי? חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַיעֵט? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא.
English Translation:
§ The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse’s use of the phrase “in the waters,” “in the waters” twice is not to be interpreted as a generalization and a detail, but rather as an instance of amplification and restriction. By the first phrase “in the waters,” the verse amplifies, by the phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” it restricts, and by the second instance of “in the waters” it then amplifies again. According to a hermeneutical principle, when a verse amplified, and then restricted, and then amplified, it amplified the relevant category to include everything except for the specific matter excluded by the restriction, i.e., in the seas and in the rivers. What, then, does it include? It includes trenches and water channels, to prohibit fish without fins and scales found in them. And what does it exclude? It excludes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael applies its own hermeneutic, ribbui u-mi’ut (amplification and restriction), rather than klal-prat. The doubled ‘in the waters’ amplifies, ‘seas and rivers’ restricts, and the second ‘in the waters’ amplifies again — a ribbui-mi’ut-ribbui, which ‘amplifies everything’ except the one excluded item. This yields the same practical result by a different mechanism: channels are forbidden, while pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
Key Terms:
- רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה = amplification, restriction, amplification
- רִיבָּה הַכֹּל = ‘it amplified everything’ [except the restricted item]
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Objection (maybe pits forbidden, only vessels excluded), refuted again by the redundancy of ‘these you may eat’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: מַאי רַבִּי? בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַאי מַיעֵט? מַיעֵט כֵּלִים. אִם כֵּן, ״תֹּאכְלוּ״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: Why not say: What does it include? It includes fish found in pits, ditches, and caves, to prohibit them if they do not have fins and scales. And what does it exclude? It excludes only fish found in vessels. The Gemara responds: If so, what use is the phrase “These may you eat of all that are in the waters”? Even without it, vessels would be excluded. Rather, it indicates that pits, ditches and caves are excluded by the restriction, and all fish found in them are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
As with the klal-prat reading, the Gemara raises the opposite possibility under ribbui-mi’ut: perhaps the amplification forbids even pits, ditches, and caves, and only vessels are excluded. It is refuted by the same no-redundancy argument: vessels would be excluded regardless, so the clause ‘these you may eat’ would be wasted unless it teaches that pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
Key Terms:
- מַאי רַבִּי = ‘what does it amplify [to include]?’
- מַיעֵט כֵּלִים = it excludes [only] vessels — the rejected reading
- תֹּאכְלוּ מַאי אַהֲנִי = the redundancy that forces the permissive reading
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not reverse it (pits forbidden, channels permitted)? Mattitya: pits are ‘contained like vessels,’ channels are not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא, כִּדְתָנֵי מַתִּתְיָה, דְּתָנֵי מַתִּתְיָה בַּר יְהוּדָה: מַאי רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת לְהֶתֵּירָא, וּלְהוֹצִיא חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין לְאִיסּוּרָא? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת שֶׁהֵן עֲצוּרִים כְּכֵלִים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי חֲרִיצִין וּנְעִיצִין שֶׁאֵין עֲצוּרִין כְּכֵלִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But perhaps l should reverse the statement and claim that fish without fins and scales in pits, ditches, and caves are prohibited, and those in trenches and water channels are permitted. The Gemara responds: One must say as Mattitya taught, as Mattitya bar Yehuda taught: What did you see that caused you to include pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them, and to exclude trenches and water channels, to prohibit them? I include pits, ditches, and caves, which contain still water like vessels, and I exclude trenches and water channels, which are not still like vessels, as water flows through them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses why the still water of pits is permitted while the flowing water of channels is forbidden, rather than the reverse. It answers with Mattitya bar Yehuda’s reasoning: pits, ditches, and caves hold contained, standing water like a vessel (atzurin ke-kelim), so creatures in them are treated like creatures in detached water and permitted; channels and trenches, whose water flows, are not ‘contained like vessels’ and so remain under the prohibition. The vessel-analogy is the operative principle.
Key Terms:
- וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא = ‘but perhaps I should reverse it’ — the symmetry challenge
- עֲצוּרִים כְּכֵלִים = contained/standing like vessels — why pits are permitted
- מַתִּתְיָה בַּר יְהוּדָה = Mattitya bar Yehuda, who supplies the distinguishing reason
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav Acha and Ravina: which verse is the ‘explicit’ permission of vessels and which the ‘implicit’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵי סָתוּם וְהֵי מְפוֹרָשׁ? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא: חַד אָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ – מְפוֹרָשׁ, וְאֵין לוֹ – סָתוּם, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין לוֹ – מְפוֹרָשׁ, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ – סָתוּם.
English Translation:
§ The baraita on the previous amud states that the Torah permits all fish without fins and scales in vessels both explicitly and implicitly. The Gemara asks: Which verse is the implicit source and which is the explicit source? Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to it. One says: The verse permitting “whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the explicit source, and the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers,” is the implicit source. And one says the opposite, i.e., that the verse prohibiting “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source and the verse that permits “whatever has fins and scales” is the implicit source.
קלאוד על הדף:
The earlier baraita said vessels are permitted both ‘explicitly’ and ‘implicitly.’ Rav Acha and Ravina dispute which verse is which. One holds the positive verse (‘whatever has fins and scales… in the seas and rivers’) is the explicit source and the negative verse the implicit; the other holds the reverse — the negative verse (‘all that lack fins and scales… in the seas and rivers’) is explicit and the positive is implicit. The next two segments give each side’s reasoning.
Key Terms:
- סָתוּם / מְפוֹרָשׁ = implicit / explicit [source]
- יֵשׁ לוֹ / אֵין לוֹ = ‘that which has [signs]’ (the positive verse) / ‘that which lacks’ (the negative verse)
- רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא = Rav Acha and Ravina, the disputants
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
The view that the positive verse is explicit: it is the source from which vessels are permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ מְפוֹרָשׁ? אָמַר לָךְ: מִינֵּיהּ הוּא דְּקָא מִשְׁתְּרוּ כֵּלִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “whatever has fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: That Sage could have said to you: It is from this verse that the Gemara derives on the previous amud that fish without fins and scales found in vessels are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara gives the reasoning of the one who holds the positive verse (‘whatever has fins and scales’) is the explicit source: it is precisely from that verse that the previous amud derived the permission of sign-less creatures in vessels (since the requirement of signs was confined to seas and rivers). Being the verse that does the actual derivation, it is the ‘explicit’ one.
Key Terms:
- מִינֵּיהּ מִשְׁתְּרוּ כֵּלִים = ‘from it vessels are permitted’ — why the positive verse is explicit
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The view that the negative verse is explicit: only it proves the positive verse permits vessels
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין לוֹ מְפוֹרָשׁ? דְּהַאי הוּא דְּקָמוֹכַח אַהַאיְךְ, דְּאִי מֵהַאיְךְ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּכֵלִים, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ – נָמֵי לָא תֵּיכוּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that “all that have not fins and scales” is the explicit source? The Gemara responds: The reasoning is that it is this verse that proves that the other verse permits all fish in vessels. As, if one attempted to derive whether fish in vessels are permitted from the other verse alone, I would say the opposite: The verse indicates that a fish with fins and scales is permitted only in the seas and rivers; but in vessels, even if it has fins and scales, you may still not eat it. The phrase in the verse “and all that have not fins and scales” indicates that these restrictions apply only to fish in the seas and rivers.
קלאוד על הדף:
The opposing reasoning: the negative verse (‘all that lack fins and scales… in the seas and rivers’) is the explicit source, because only it proves that the positive verse permits creatures in vessels. Without the negative verse one might have read the positive verse restrictively — that signs are required and only in seas and rivers, so a fish in a vessel would be forbidden even with signs. The negative verse, by confining its prohibition to seas and rivers, establishes that vessels are exempt entirely.
Key Terms:
- דְּקָמוֹכַח אַהַאיְךְ = ‘it proves [the matter] regarding the other [verse]’
- בְּכֵלִים אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ = ‘in vessels, even though it has [signs]’ — the mistaken reading the negative verse forecloses
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Huna: don’t filter beer through straw at night, lest a creature surface above the straw and fall back in
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לָא לִשְׁפֵּי אִינָשׁ שִׁיכְרָא בְּצִבְיָיתָא בְּאוּרְתָּא, דִּילְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְעֵיל מִצִּבְיָיתָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל לְכָסָא, וְקָא עוֹבַר מִשּׁוּם ״שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
English Translation:
§ Rav Huna says: A person should not pour beer into a vessel through straw to filter it at night, lest a creeping animal emerge from the beer above the straw and then fall into the cup. Since the drinker poured the beer through a filter, he will assume that all creatures found in the vessel originated there and are permitted despite lacking fins and scales. He will therefore drink the beer along with the creature, and in doing so, he violates the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna turns to a practical concern about insects in beverages. One should not filter beer through a straw strainer at night, because a creature might emerge from the beer above the strainer (leaving the liquid, and thus becoming forbidden as a sheretz) and then fall back into the cup. Relying on the filter, the drinker would wrongly assume everything in the cup is permissible and swallow the now-forbidden creature, transgressing ‘the swarming thing that swarms upon the earth.’
Key Terms:
- לָא לִשְׁפֵּי שִׁיכְרָא בְּצִבְיָיתָא = one should not pour/filter beer through a straw [strainer]
- פָּרֵישׁ = [a creature] separates/emerges [from the liquid]
- שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ = ‘the swarming thing that swarms on the earth’ (Leviticus 11:41)
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not worry about any vessel? Because clinging to the vessel wall is the creature’s normal manner (revitei)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, בְּמָנָא נָמֵי, דִּלְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְדַפְנָא דְּמָנָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל לְמָנָא? הָתָם הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: If so, that one must be concerned that a creeping animal may have fallen from the straw into the cup, one should also be concerned about any beer found in a vessel, as perhaps some creature emerged from the beer onto the side of the vessel, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into the vessel. The Gemara responds: There, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, to attach itself to the sides of the vessel, and it is not considered to have emerged from the liquid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects that the same worry should apply to any beer in a vessel — a creature might climb the inner wall (emerging from the liquid) and fall back. It answers that attaching to the vessel’s side is the creature’s revitei, its normal manner of growth/habitat, so it is not deemed to have ‘emerged’ and become forbidden. Only the filtering case, where the creature surfaces above the strainer, raises a genuine concern.
Key Terms:
- דַּפְנָא דְּמָנָא = the side/wall of the vessel
- הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ = ‘this is its [normal] manner of growth’ — so emerging onto the wall does not forbid it
Segment 13
TYPE: ראיה
Proof for ‘revitei’ from the baraita permitting drinking from pits/caves without straining
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרַאּ, דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁשּׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא פָּרֵישׁ לְדַפְנָא וַהֲדַר נָפֵיל? אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ.
English Translation:
And from where do you say that emerging in its normal manner of growth does not render it forbidden? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived to include pits, ditches, and caves, that one may bend down and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures inside them? The verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters,” indicating that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted. And one might ask: Let one be concerned that perhaps a creature emerged from the water onto the side of the pit or cave, thereby becoming forbidden, and then fell back into it. Rather, one must say that since that is the creature’s normal manner of growth, it does not render it forbidden. Here too, with regard to beer in a vessel, that is the creature’s normal manner of growth and does not render it forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proves the revitei principle from the baraita that permits bending down to drink from pits, ditches, and caves without straining out their creatures. One might have worried there too that a creature climbed the wall and fell back; since the baraita permits it anyway, clinging to the wall must be the creature’s normal manner and not render it forbidden. The same logic applies to beer in a vessel.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה = bends down and drinks [without straining]
- הַיְינוּ רְבִיתֵיהּ = its normal manner — the principle proven from the baraita
Segment 14
TYPE: סיוע
Rav Chisda supports Rav Huna: the verse includes only filtered gnats — unfiltered ones are permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ, ״כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְרַבּוֹת יַבְחוּשִׁין שֶׁסִּינְּנָן; טַעְמָא דְּסִינְּנָן, הָא לָא סִינְּנָן – שְׁרֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: A baraita is taught that supports your statement that one need be concerned only about filtered beer: The verse: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:41), serves to include gnats found in liquid that one filtered. One may infer: The reason they are prohibited is because one filtered the liquids, but if one did not filter them, the gnats are permitted. Evidently, one need not be concerned that they emerged from the water onto the side of the vessel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda brings a baraita supporting Rav Huna’s narrow concern. The verse ‘every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth’ is expounded to include filtered gnats (yavchushin she-sinenan) as forbidden — implying that unfiltered gnats in the liquid are permitted. This confirms that one need not worry that creatures climbed the wall and re-fell; the concern arises only once the liquid has been filtered, exactly as Rav Huna said.
Key Terms:
- יַבְחוּשִׁין שֶׁסִּינְּנָן = gnats that one filtered — included as forbidden
- הָא לָא סִינְּנָן שְׁרֵי = ‘but if not filtered, they are permitted’ — the supporting inference
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא
Shmuel: a cucumber that became worm-infested while attached to the ground is forbidden (statement begins)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִישּׁוּת שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה
English Translation:
§ With regard to the prohibition against consuming creeping animals, Shmuel says: A cucumber that became infested with worms
קלאוד על הדף:
A new topic: worms inside produce. Shmuel rules that a cucumber (kishut) that became infested with worms while still attached to the ground is forbidden, because while attached the cucumber counts as part of ‘the earth,’ so its worms fall under ‘the swarming thing that swarms upon the earth.’ The statement’s key qualifier — ‘while attached’ (be-ibeha) — runs onto 67b, and frames the central question of whether attachment to the ground is what triggers the prohibition.
Key Terms:
- קִישּׁוּת שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה = a cucumber that became wormy/infested
- בְּאִבֶּיהָ = while attached [to the ground] — the operative qualifier
- הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ = the swarming thing ‘upon the earth’
Amud Bet (67b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
Completion of Shmuel: attached-while-infested = forbidden, since the cucumber counts as ‘the earth’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּאִבֶּיהָ אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם ״הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.
English Translation:
while attached to the ground is prohibited, due to the prohibition of: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” because the cucumber was considered part of the earth when the worms infested it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel’s statement is completed: the worm-infested cucumber is forbidden ‘because of the swarming thing that swarms upon the earth’ — for while it was still attached, the cucumber was legally part of the ground, and the worm that bred in it is treated as having swarmed on the earth. This establishes attachment to the ground as the trigger, the premise the Gemara now tests against two baraitot.
Key Terms:
- אֲסוּרָה = it is forbidden
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Two baraitot: one excludes worms in lentils/dates/figs; the other includes worms in olive- and vine-roots
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, דְּתָנֵי חֲדָא: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַזִּיזִין שֶׁבָּעֲדָשִׁים, וְאֶת הַיַּתּוּשִׁים שֶׁבַּכַּלִּיסִים, וְתוֹלַעַת שֶׁבַּתְּמָרִים וְשֶׁבַּגְּרוֹגְרוֹת. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כׇּל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְרַבּוֹת תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וְשֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי גְפָנִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a comparison of the following two baraitot supports Shmuel’s opinion. As it is taught in one baraita: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth” serves to exclude zizin, a type of insect that is found in lentils, and mosquitoes that are in kelisim, a type of bean, and worms that are in dates and in dried figs. All of these are permitted for consumption because they do not swarm on the earth itself. And it is taught in another baraita that when the verse states: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” the word “every” serves to include as non-kosher worms that are in the roots of olive trees and that are in the roots of vines.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites two baraitot to test Shmuel. One expounds ‘upon the earth’ to exclude (permit) worms found in lentils, beans, dates, and dried figs — creatures that never swarmed on the earth itself. The other expounds ‘every (kol) swarming thing… upon the earth’ to include (forbid) worms in the roots of olive trees and vines. The contrast between what is excluded and what is included is what seems, at first, to support Shmuel’s attached/detached distinction.
Key Terms:
- זִיזִין שֶׁבָּעֲדָשִׁים = insects in lentils — excluded (permitted)
- תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבַּתְּמָרִים = worms in dates — excluded
- עִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים = the roots of olive trees — worms there are included (forbidden)
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Proposed support for Shmuel: both speak of fruit — forbidden when attached, permitted when detached
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי לָאו, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּפֵירָא, וְהָא בְּאִבֵּיהּ, וְהָא שֶׁלָּא בְּאִבֵּיהּ?
English Translation:
What, is it not that both this and that baraita are referring to insects that are found in the fruit, and this, the latter baraita, deems forbidden fruit that is attached to the ground, and that, the former baraita, deems permitted fruit that is not attached to the ground? This would support Shmuel’s statement that worms in a cucumber attached to the ground are forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes that the two baraitot support Shmuel: perhaps both speak of worms in fruit, and the difference is attachment — the permissive baraita treats fruit detached from the ground (permitted), while the forbidding baraita treats fruit attached to the ground (forbidden). On this reading, the very distinction Shmuel drew (attached vs. detached) is the key to the two baraitot.
Key Terms:
- בְּאִבֵּיהּ / שֶׁלָּא בְּאִבֵּיהּ = attached / not attached [to the ground]
Segment 4
TYPE: דחיה
Rejected: both speak of attached produce; the distinction is fruit (permitted) vs. tree itself (forbidden)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי בְּאִבֵּיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּפֵירָא, הָא בְּאִילָנָא גּוּפֵאּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, it is possible that both this and that baraita are referring to insects found in vegetation attached to the ground; and the apparent contradiction between the two is not difficult. This, the former baraita, deems permitted insects found in the fruit, and that, the latter baraita, deems forbidden insects found in the tree itself. This interpretation contradicts Shmuel’s statement.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the supportive reading. Both baraitot may speak of produce attached to the ground, and the real distinction is not attachment but location: worms in the fruit are permitted, while worms in the tree (or root) itself are forbidden. On this reading the baraitot do not support Shmuel, since even attached fruit can be permitted — what matters is whether the worm bred in the fruit or in the woody body of the plant.
Key Terms:
- בְּפֵירָא / בְּאִילָנָא גּוּפֵיהּ = in the fruit / in the tree itself
Segment 5
TYPE: ראיה
The wording proves it: ‘roots of olives and vines’ refers to the tree itself, not the fruit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וְשֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי גְפָנִים״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: The language of the latter baraita is also precise, as it teaches: Worms that are in the roots of olive trees and in the roots of vines, clearly referring to the tree itself rather than the fruit. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that the second interpretation is correct.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara finds the rejecting reading more precise: the forbidding baraita specifies worms ‘in the roots of olive trees and vines’ — clearly the woody plant itself, not its fruit. This favors the fruit-vs-tree distinction over the attached-vs-detached one, and the Gemara concludes accordingly (shma minah), leaving Shmuel’s attachment-based ruling without support from these sources.
Key Terms:
- עִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וּגְפָנִים = the roots of olive trees and vines — i.e., the tree itself
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = ‘conclude from this’ — the fruit-vs-tree reading is correct
Segment 6
TYPE: בעיא (תיקו)
Rav Yosef’s unresolved dilemmas: a worm that emerged and died, or partly emerged, or flew into the air
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: פְּרָשָׁהּ וּמֵתָה, מַהוּ? מִקְצָתָהּ, מַהוּ? לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
§ From the above discussion, it is clear that worms that grow in produce not attached to the ground, and have never emerged from the produce, do not fall under the prohibition of: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,” because they have never swarmed on the earth. Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: If a worm emerged from the produce but died before it reached the earth, what is the halakha? Is it considered to have swarmed on the earth simply by having emerged? If only part of it emerged, what is the halakha? If it emerged into the air of the world and flew away without landing, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds to all of the above: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since worms that never leave the (detached) produce never ‘swarmed on the earth’ and are permitted, Rav Yosef asks about borderline emergence. If the worm emerged from the produce but died before reaching the ground — is the mere act of emerging enough to forbid it? What if only part of it emerged? What if it emerged into the open air and flew off without landing? Each turns on whether ‘swarming on the earth’ requires actual contact with the ground. All are left teiku, unresolved.
Key Terms:
- פְּרָשָׁהּ וּמֵתָה = it emerged and died [before reaching the ground]
- מִקְצָתָהּ = part of it [emerged]
- לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם = into the open air
- תֵּיקוּ = the dilemma stands unresolved
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיא (תיקו)
Rav Ashi’s unresolved dilemmas: a worm crawling onto the date’s surface, its pit, or into an attached date
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: לְגַג תְּמָרָה מַהוּ? לְגַג גַּרְעִינָתָהּ מַהוּ? מִתְּמָרָה לִתְמָרָה מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If a worm was spawned in a date, and it emerges and climbs onto the roof of the date, i.e., its upper part, what is the halakha? Is this considered the normal manner of growth for the worm, in which case this does not render it forbidden, or is the roof of the date considered a separate entity such that crawling there constitutes swarming on the earth? And if it is considered a separate entity, what is the halakha if the worm climbed onto the roof of the date’s pit? Is this considered the normal manner of growth for the worm? If the worm emerged from a date and entered a date that was attached to it, without being exposed to the air, what then is the halakha? The Gemara responds to all of the above: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi raises parallel dilemmas about a worm bred in a date. If it crawls onto the roof (outer surface) of the date — is that still its normal habitat (permitted) or a separate surface amounting to ‘swarming on the earth’? What about onto the surface of the date’s pit? And what if it passes from one date directly into an adjoining (attached) date without ever being exposed to the air? Each probes the boundary of revitei (normal manner) versus emergence, and all are left teiku.
Key Terms:
- גַּג תְּמָרָה = the ‘roof’/outer surface of the date
- גַּג גַּרְעִינָתָהּ = the surface of the date’s pit
- מִתְּמָרָה לִתְמָרָה = from one date to another [adjoining] date
- תֵּיקוּ = unresolved
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Sheshet b. Rav Idi: kukyanei (worms in animal organs) are forbidden — they came from outside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: קוּקְיָאנֵי אֲסִירִי, מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ.
English Translation:
§ Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: Kukeyanei, worms found in the internal organs of animals, e.g., in the lung and liver, are forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that they came from the outside world, i.e., the animal must have swallowed them along with vegetation, in which case these worms were already included in the prohibition: “Every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The discussion turns to kukyanei — worms found in an animal’s internal organs (lung, liver). Rav Sheshet son of Rav Idi forbids them, reasoning that they ‘come from outside’: the animal swallowed them with its fodder, so these worms were already forbidden sheratzim that ‘swarmed on the earth’ before entering the animal, and they retain that status.
Key Terms:
- קוּקְיָאנֵי = kukyanei — worms found in an animal’s internal organs
- מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ = ‘they come from the outside world’ — hence already forbidden
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Ashi objects: if they came from outside, they’d be found in the digestive tract too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ, לִישְׁתַּכְחוּ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרֶיעִי.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi objects to this: If they came from the outside world, they should be found in the digestive tract as well. Since they are found only in non-digestive organs, they must have originated in the animal and should not be considered creeping animals that swarm on the earth.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi objects to Rav Sheshet’s reasoning. If the kukyanei truly entered from outside via the animal’s food, they would be found along the digestive tract; but they appear only in non-digestive organs like the lung and liver. This suggests they originated inside the animal rather than being swallowed — which would make them not ‘swarmers on the earth.’
Key Terms:
- דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרֶיעִי = by way of the digestive tract
- לִישְׁתַּכְחוּ = ‘they would [then] be found’ [there]
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
An alternative version: Rav Sheisha permits kukyanei (they form within); Rav Ashi: obviously, else they’d be in the gut
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: קוּקְיָאנֵי שְׁרוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִינֵּיהּ גָּבְלִי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּאִי מֵעָלְמָא קָא אָתוּ – לִישְׁתַּכְחוּ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרֶיעִי!
English Translation:
Some state the exchange differently: Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: Kukeyanei are permitted. What is the reason for this? It is that they originate from inside the animal. Rav Ashi said: This is obvious, as if they came from the outside world, they should be found in the digestive tract.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternate tradition reverses the attribution: Rav Sheisha son of Rav Idi permits kukyanei, holding that they form from within the animal (minei gavli) and so never swarmed on the earth. Rav Ashi comments that this is obvious — if they came from outside they would be found in the digestive tract. The two versions disagree on the conclusion but share Rav Ashi’s anatomical observation.
Key Terms:
- שְׁרוּ = they are permitted
- מִינֵּיהּ גָּבְלִי = ‘they form from within it’ — hence permitted
- פְּשִׁיטָא = ‘it is obvious’
Segment 11
TYPE: פסק הלכה
The halakha: kukyanei forbidden (worms enter via the snout in sleep); meat-worms forbidden, fish-worms permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהִלְכְתָא: קוּקְיָאנֵי אֲסִירִי, מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵינָם נָיֵים וְעָיְילִי לֵיהּ בְּאוּסְיֵיהּ תּוֹלָעִים. דַּרְנֵי דְּבִשְׂרָא – אֲסִירִי, דְּכַוְורֵי – שַׁרְיָין.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Kukeyanei are forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that the animal sleeps, and worms enter it through its snout. From there they travel to the internal organs without passing through the digestive tract. Worms found in meat between the skin and the flesh are forbidden; those found in fish are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rules definitively: kukyanei are forbidden. The reason resolves Rav Ashi’s objection — the animal swallows them not through its food but through its snout while asleep, so the worms reach the internal organs without passing through the digestive tract (explaining their absence there). The ruling adds two further halachot that frame the rest of the sugya: worms found in the flesh/skin of meat (darnei de-visra) are forbidden, while worms found in fish (de-kavrei) are permitted.
Key Terms:
- וְהִלְכְתָא = ‘and the halakha is’
- עָיְילִי בְּאוּסְיֵיהּ = they enter through its snout/nostril [in sleep]
- דַּרְנֵי דְּבִשְׂרָא אֲסִירִי / דְּכַוְורֵי שַׁרְיָין = meat-worms are forbidden / fish-worms are permitted
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה / קושיא
Ravina has his mother hide the fish-worms; Rav Mesharshiya challenges from the ‘worms in animals’ baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לַהּ רָבִינָא לְאִימֵּיהּ: אַבְלַע לִי וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא לְרָבִינָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא ״וְאֶת נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַדְּרָנִים שֶׁבַּבְּהֵמָה?
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Ravina said to his mother: Conceal the fish’s worms inside it so I cannot see them, and I will eat the fish. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Aḥa, said to Ravina: What is different in this case from that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: “Their carcasses you shall have in detestation” (Leviticus 11:11), serves to include worms that are in animals as forbidden? Why are worms in fish permitted?
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina, relying on the ruling that fish-worms are permitted, asks his mother to conceal them in the fish so he can eat without seeing them (out of distaste, not law). Rav Mesharshiya son of Rav Acha challenges: a baraita expounds ‘their carcasses you shall hold in detestation’ to forbid the darnim (worms) found in animals — so why should fish-worms be different? The challenge sets up the decisive distinction in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- אַבְלַע לִי = ‘conceal [them] for me’ — so Ravina need not see the worms
- וְאֶת נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ = ‘their carcasses you shall detest’ (Leviticus 11:11) — forbidding animal-worms
- הַדְּרָנִים שֶׁבַּבְּהֵמָה = the worms in animals
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Ravina distinguishes: an animal needs shechita (worms stay forbidden); fish are permitted by mere gathering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה הוּא דְּמִשְׁתַּרְיָא, וְהָנֵי מִדְּלָא קָא מַהְנְיָא לְהוּ שְׁחִיטָה – בְּאִיסּוּרַיְיהוּ קָיְימָן, אֲבָל דָּגִים בַּאֲסִיפָה בְּעָלְמָא מִישְׁתְּרוּ, וְהָנֵי כִּי קָא גָבְלָן – בְּהֶיתֵּרָא קָא גָבְלָן.
English Translation:
Ravina said to him: How can these cases be compared? An animal is rendered permitted for consumption only by slaughter. Before it is slaughtered, it and all its contents are considered part of a living animal and prohibited by the Torah. And since the animal’s slaughter is not effective for these worms, they retain their forbidden status. But fish are rendered permitted by merely gathering them; they are not included in the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. And therefore, when these worms originate inside the fish, they originate in a permitted state.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina answers with a fundamental distinction in how each becomes permitted. An animal is rendered fit only through shechita; before slaughter it and everything within it is a living animal forbidden to eat, and since shechita does not ‘work’ on the worms, they remain in their forbidden state. Fish, by contrast, are rendered permitted by mere gathering (asifa) — needing no slaughter — so a worm that originates inside the fish forms while the fish is already in a permitted state and is itself permitted.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁחִיטָה מִשְׁתַּרְיָא = [an animal] is permitted [only] through slaughter
- בַּאֲסִיפָה מִישְׁתְּרוּ = [fish] are permitted by mere gathering
- בְּהֶיתֵּרָא קָא גָבְלָן = they form in a state of permissibility
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita parses Leviticus 11:42’s terms — snake, worm, scorpion, beetle, centipede, and their look-alikes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הוֹלֵךְ עַל גָּחוֹן״ – זֶה נָחָשׁ, ״כֹּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַשִּׁילְשׁוּל וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לְשִׁילְשׁוּל, ״עַל אַרְבַּע״ – זֶה עַקְרָב, ״כֹּל הוֹלֵךְ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַחִיפּוּשִׁית וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לְחִיפּוּשִׁית, ״מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם״ – זֶה נָדָל, ״עַד כׇּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַדּוֹמֶה וְאֶת הַדּוֹמֶה לַדּוֹמֶה.
English Translation:
§ The verse states: “Whatever goes upon the belly, and whatever goes upon all fours, or whatever has many feet, even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat” (Leviticus 11:42). The Sages taught in a baraita that the phrase “goes upon the belly” is referring to the snake. The preceding word “whatever” serves to include the earthworm and animals similar to an earthworm. The phrase “upon all fours” is referring to the scorpion. The preceding phrase “whatever goes” serves to include the beetle and animals similar to a beetle. The phrase “has many feet” is referring to the centipede. The preceding phrase “or whatever” serves to include animals similar to a centipede and animals similar to those similar to it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita expounds the verse ‘whatever goes on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, whatever has many feet… you shall not eat’ (Leviticus 11:42), reading each phrase as naming a creature and each preceding inclusive word as adding look-alikes. ‘Goes on its belly’ = the snake; ‘whatever’ adds the earthworm and its like. ‘On all fours’ = the scorpion; ‘whatever goes’ adds the beetle and its like. ‘Has many feet’ = the centipede; ‘until/every’ adds its look-alikes and even the look-alikes of those look-alikes — a comprehensive net over crawling sheratzim.
Key Terms:
- הוֹלֵךְ עַל גָּחוֹן = ‘goes upon the belly’ = the snake
- עַל אַרְבַּע = ‘on all fours’ = the scorpion
- מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם = ‘has many feet’ = the centipede (nadal)
- הַדּוֹמֶה וְהַדּוֹמֶה לַדּוֹמֶה = the look-alike and the look-alike of the look-alike
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא / אגדתא
R’ Yosei ben Durmaskit: the leviathan is a kosher fish — its ‘armor’ is scales, its ‘potsherds’ fins
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית אוֹמֵר: לִוְיָתָן דָּג טָהוֹר הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גַּאֲוָה אֲפִיקֵי מָגִנִּים״, ״תַּחְתָּיו חַדּוּדֵי חֶרֶשׂ״; ״אֲפִיקֵי מָגִנִּים״ – אֵלּוּ קַשְׂקַשִּׂים שֶׁבּוֹ, ״תַּחְתָּיו חַדּוּדֵי חֶרֶשׂ״ – אֵלּוּ סְנַפִּירִין שֶׁפּוֹרֵחַ בָּהֶן.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: The leviathan mentioned in the Bible is a kosher fish, as it is stated: “His armor is his pride” (Job 41:7), and: “Sharpest potsherds are under him” (Job 41:22). The phrase “his armor” is referring to his scales, which protect him like armor. The phrase “sharpest potsherds are under him” is referring to fins with which he swims, which are sharp and project from his underside.
קלאוד על הדף:
The chapter closes on a striking aggadic-halachic note. Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit teaches that the livyatan (leviathan) is a kosher fish, deriving it from the description in Iyov (Job 41): ‘his pride is channels of shields’ refers to its scales (kaskesim), and ‘beneath him are sharp potsherds’ refers to its fins (senapirin) with which it swims. Since it possesses the two kosher signs, the leviathan — the great fish reserved for the feast of the righteous in the future — is itself a kosher species.
Key Terms:
- לִוְיָתָן דָּג טָהוֹר = the leviathan is a kosher fish
- אֲפִיקֵי מָגִנִּים = ‘channels of shields’ (Job 41:7) — read as its scales
- חַדּוּדֵי חֶרֶשׂ = ‘sharp potsherds’ (Job 41:22) — read as its fins
Segment 16
TYPE: הדרן
The hadran concluding the third chapter, Eilu Tereifot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת
English Translation:
Hadran alach Eilu Tereifot — We will return to you, “Eilu Tereifot.” This concludes the third chapter of Chullin.
קלאוד על הדף:
The chapter ends with the hadran — the traditional formula recited on completing a unit of Talmud: Hadran alach Eilu Tereifot, ‘We will return to you, Eilu Tereifot.’ It marks the conclusion of the third chapter of Chullin, which began with the signs of a tereifa animal and has carried through the laws of kosher birds, locusts, fish, and the creeping creatures, closing fittingly with the leviathan and the formal siyum of the perek.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ = ‘we will return to you’ — the formula of completion
- אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת = ‘Eilu Tereifot’ — the name of the third chapter of Chullin